[ALAC] [GTLD-WG] Re "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" Public comment

Sun Jul 13 16:04:43 UTC 2014

Well, end users might confuse the two character label at the 2nd level as a
country or territory if third level domains were being offered under that
2nd level.

Using au.org from your example, a hypothetical domain like health.au.org
could confuse users in thinking it represented a health authority from
Australia.

A company (I don't think its a accredited registrar) called Joynic (
http://www.joynic.com) offers third level domains under .vu (the ccTLD for
Vanuatu):
de.vu, at.vu, ch.vu, nl.vu, ca.vu, tr.vu, gr.vu, ru.vu, pl.vu, es.vu, za.vu

>From 2005 to 2011, Joynic was offering third level domains under .tt (the
ccTLD from Trinidad and Tobago) :
us.tt, uk.tt, uk.tt, ca.tt, au.tt, eu.tt, fr.tt, es.tt, nl.tt, it.tt, be.tt,
de.tt, at.tt, ch.tt

See Wayback archive of Joynic's website from 2010 at
https://web.archive.org/web/20100106020548/http://www.joynic.com/

Dev Anand

On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> I am all for making a statement if there is a real user issue here.
>
> I just don't see it.
>
> If I say a domain of ca.com, I would not likely think that it is somehow
> related to Canada. In fact, when I played that mind exercise I immediately
> thought about a long-defunct computer company called Coumputer Automation
> Inc. au.org is a group called Americans United for Separation of Church
> and State. Who is going to confuse that with Australia.
>
> Personally I would not object to the release of all 2-letter codes.
> BA.TRAVEL is going to mean British Airways to most users. Perhaps there
> are some that would take it as meaning Bosnia-and-Herzegovina.travel...
>
> But remember, we are only talking about the two letter codes that are NOT
> used and currently have no meaning in relation to countries. If one day
> they are allocated, as someone pointed out, there is a good chance that the
> two letter code will not be instantly recognizable as standing for its new
> territorial owner. Is there really much likelihood of mass confusion?
>
> If you can write up a credible statement about potential user confusion, I
> am all for it.
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 12/07/2014 09:31 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>
>> Hi Alan
>>
>> I take your points.  And maybe it is too late to protest, but  in making
>> a statement, couldn’t we note the impact on users.  And remember, GAC is
>> not there to represent users and since not all countries are represented
>> within the GAC (particularly ones that do not exist, but may), maybe we
>> can’t expect them to mount the same arguments from a user perspective
>>
>> Holly
>> On 11 Jul 2014, at 12:41 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > While not disagreeing with Dev's careful analysis, I do have a comment
>> and a question:
>> >
>> > - Similar requests have already been approved for other TLDs. Refusing
>> these could be seen as inequitable.
>> > - If the GAC and governments are not opposing such changes, is there
>> really a user component that implies that we should comment?
>> >
>> > Alan
>> >
>> > At 10/07/2014 03:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>> >> Thanks for this, Dev.
>> >> You'll note that the Statement is currently marked "No Statement" but
>> if
>> >> there is interest and your comments gain traction, the ALAC could
>> indeed
>> >> make a Statement.
>> >> Kindest regards,
>> >>
>> >> Olivier
>> >>
>> >> On 10/07/2014 08:06, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
>> >> > Regarding the public comment on "Introduction of Two-Character
>> Domain Names
>> >> > in the New gTLD Namespace" at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg
>> >> > which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at
>> >> > https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg
>> >> > for consideration:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Various registries for multiple gTLDs are applying for exceptions to
>> >> > Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement
>> >> > ("Specification 5") with some registries suggesting the release of 2
>> >> > character ASCII labels not on the current ISO 3166 standard would
>> suffice.
>> >> >
>> >> > While this seems harmless, there is a possibility of new countries
>> and
>> >> > territories being created, and then allocated a new two character
>> ASCII
>> >> > label by ISO 3166/MA (see
>> >> > https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso.
>> org/iso/country_codes/iso-3166-1_decoding_table.htm
>> >> > ).
>> >> >
>> >> > Any new country or territory created after 2014 would therefore not
>> receive
>> >> > the same protection as those in the 2014 ISO 3166-2 list and would
>> find
>> >> > that their new 2 character label is "given away", should they wish
>> for
>> >> > their 2 character ASCII label to be protected, as per Specification
>> 5.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now, should the principle established by Specification 5 protecting 2
>> >> > character ASCII labels even be in the New gTLD Registry Agreement?
>> Many
>> >> > would say, especially given the prevalence of two character labels in
>> >> > existing TLDs like .com, .org and .net that this principle shouldn't
>> be
>> >> > applied to new gTLDs.
>> >> > However, this (IMO) is a separate issue to the question being asked
>> for in
>> >> > the public comment.
>> >> >
>> >> > If Specification 5 is meant to defend the principle that country
>> codes in
>> >> > ISO 3166-2 should be protected in new gTLDs, then it should be
>> enforced to
>> >> > ensure future countries and territories with new 2 character ASCII
>> labels
>> >> > are protected in the same way as those territories and countries in
>> today's
>> >> > ISO 3166-2 list.
>> >> >
>> >> > Therefore, the proposals by Donuts for 143 of its new gTLDS, .kred by
>> >> > KredTLD Pty Ltd, .best by BestTLD Pty Ltd and .ceo by CEOTLD Pty Ltd.
>> >> > should be turned down in keeping with the principle of Specification
>> 5.
>> >> >
>> >> > The proposal by .wiki by Top Level Design LLC which specifies that
>> the two
>> >> > character ASCII labels will only be used for languages identified by
>> ISO
>> >> > 639-1 does appear to meet the threshold that the use will not be
>> confused
>> >> > with the corresponding country codes, as per Specification 5 and
>> could be
>> >> > approved.
>> >> >
>> >> > Similarly, the proposal by .globo by Globo Comunicação e
>> Participações S.A
>> >> > which proposed the use of two character ASCII labels that are not
>> letters
>> >> > or by two characters where only one of the character is a letter are
>> labels
>> >> > that would not be used by ISO 3166-2 and could be approved."
>> >> >
>> >> > Thoughts?
>> >> >
>> >> > Kind Regards,
>> >> >
>> >> > Dev Anand Teelucksingh
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > ALAC mailing list
>> >> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> >> >
>> >> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> >> > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/
>> display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>> >> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ALAC mailing list
>> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> >
>> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/
>> display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>>
>
>